Performance of HbA1c versus oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a screening tool to diagnose dysglycemic status in high-risk Thai patients

• Main Authors: Yotsapon Thewjitcharoen, Amia Jones Elizabeth, Siriwan Butadej, Soontaree Nakasatien, Phawinpon Chotwanvirat, Ekgaluck Wanothayaroj, Sirinate Krittiyawong, Tinapa Himathongkam, Thep Himathongkam
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-02-01
• Series: BMC Endocrine Disorders
• Subjects: HbA1c; OGTT; Dysglycemia; Performance; Diagnostic accuracy
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12902-019-0339-6

Abstract Background Dysglycemic status defined by prediabetes and diabetes is known to be related with future risk of diabetic complications and cardiovascular diseases. Herein, we aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) when compared with oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a reference test in identifying dysglycemic status among high-risk Thai patients receiving care in an out-patient setting. Methods An 11-year retrospective cross-sectional study of high-risk Thai patients who underwent OGTT during 2007–2017 was analysed. The OGTT was used as a reference test to identify subjects of dysglycemic status. The diagnostic accuracy of HbA1c and the agreement between HbA1c and OGTT were examined. Validated Thai diabetes risk score, Thai cardiovascular risk score (Thai CV risk score), and visceral fat area (VFA) were also compared in each glycemic status from OGTT as surrogate markers for future diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Results A total of 512 subjects (females 60.5%, mean age of 50.3 ± 12.7 years, BMI of 26.5 ± 4.6 kg/m2) were reviewed. Normal glucose tolerance (NGT) was found in 220 patients (43.0%), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in 191 patients (37.3%), and diabetes in 101 patients (19.7%). The prevalence of diabetes using OGTT was approximately two times higher than those defined by HbA1c (19.7% versus 11.1%). There were poor agreements between the classifications of prediabetes and diabetes defined by OGTT and HbA1c (Cohen’s Kappa 0.154 and 0.306, respectively). Using a cut-off value for HbA1c ≥6.5% as a threshold for HbA1c-defined criteria of diabetes, sensitivity was 32% (95% CI 23–41%) and specificity was 94% (95% CI 92–96%). The optimal cut-off HbA1c value for detecting diabetes by Youden’s index was at HbA1c 6.2%. Thai CV risk score was much higher among the OGTT-defined diabetes group when compared with the NGT group (median score 10 vs. 3, p-value < 0.001). Conclusions Despite the practicality and validity of HbA1c as a diagnostic test, our study suggested that HbA1c as a screening tool for diabetes in high-risk Thai patients is much inferior to OGTT. With limitations of HbA1c, physicians should continue to advocate OGTT as a screening tool for the identification of dysglycemic status in high-risk Thai patients.